> "The judge said that while the information on the website with reference to the failings of the doctor in 2014 was correct, the pejorative name of the blacklist site suggested she was unfit to treat people, and that was not supported by the disciplinary panel’s findings."
Again, IANAL, but what I’m reading does not seem relevant to libel. Namely, the pejorative title of the website has nothing to do with the claims they’re making.
If the doc had a libel case, why the hell did they not go for that, instead?
> "The judge said that while the information on the website with reference to the failings of the doctor in 2014 was correct, the pejorative name of the blacklist site suggested she was unfit to treat people, and that was not supported by the disciplinary panel’s findings."